What’s Your Why?

Read the campaign story

AIA launched What’s Your Why? in September 2017 with David Beckham, combining personal-motivation stories with a regional tour and multiple media formats. BBDO Singapore created the campaign; the launch film was directed by Wally Pfister, with still photography by Joey Lawrence. The work asked audiences to consider reasons for healthy living. Related phases of this named platform are grouped rather than counted as separate ambassador campaigns.

Editorial interpretation: a question about motivation can shift communication from an institution’s instructions to an individual’s own reasons. That can make the invitation feel more relevant, but the question is not neutral if only one kind of answer is celebrated. A responsible adaptation should allow uncertainty, competing priorities and choosing not to disclose. It should also distinguish a personal reason for an activity from evidence that an insurer’s product is suitable or that a famous person’s routine is transferable.

The sources document the campaign and its stated purpose, not improved health, longevity, insurance suitability or sustained behaviour change. The brand’s aspirations are not adopted as verified outcomes. This case offers no diet, exercise, medical or financial advice. Its proposed test uses an optional arts activity with fictional motivations, no collection of health conditions, family circumstances, income or policy information, and no attempt to turn disclosure into a sales lead.

Ask a question that permits more than the desired answer

A motivational question can become a disguised instruction if the campaign rewards only enthusiastic commitment. Design the prompt so that a person can express ambivalence, name a constraint or decline without being corrected. A small community programme could ask what would make an activity worth considering, rather than why someone has not started. Test the range of answers the wording allows, using fictional scenarios instead of private histories. The goal is to understand whether the invitation respects agency. A question that produces a predictable inspirational response may be effective copy, but it is not necessarily a useful way to understand what people need.

Keep reasons and practical conditions in the same frame

A personal reason can help someone recognise relevance, yet it does not remove barriers such as time, access or cost. Pair the invitation with concrete information about what participation requires. A small workshop provider might state duration, materials, accessibility and the option to observe rather than join. Ask participants whether the practical information supports the promise or contradicts it. If the message implies that motivation alone is sufficient, revise it before asking more intimate questions. A good communication route makes both desire and feasibility visible. This is more respectful than treating every hesitation as a problem to be overcome through stronger emotional encouragement.

Use the ambassador as an example, not a universal standard

A public figure can make a question more visible while bringing circumstances that differ greatly from those of the audience. Keep the example bounded and avoid implying that everyone should copy the same routine or priorities. A small team can use several fictional reasons instead of one exceptional life story, making clear that no answer is superior. Evaluate whether people understand the invitation without comparing themselves unfavourably with the presenter. Sponsor recognition and motivation are separate from expertise. The campaign should not allow fame to substitute for specialist evidence or make an insurance decision feel like joining an admired person’s way of life.

A bounded test for another brief

Proposed adaptation: a community art room could compare a factual invitation to an optional sketching session with the same invitation preceded by a neutral motivation question. Ask consenting adults to consider a fictional person choosing among observing, joining or declining. Provide identical access and time information. Use no celebrity imagery, health framing or personal disclosure. Ask whether the question clarifies the choice and whether any option feels judged. This tests the effect of a reflective prompt on decision clarity, not whether motivation improves health or whether a sponsor deserves trust in a consequential financial decision.

Measure understanding of options, practical requirements and freedom to decline. Record whether participants infer that enthusiasm is expected. Keep responses separate from real health behaviour, personal motivation scores and product consideration.

Stop if the question extracts sensitive information, treats hesitation as failure, implies health guarantees or lets ambassador admiration stand in for suitability and evidence.